>
> Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
> "contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and
> easily explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence?

If you have already decided that the bible doesn't have any contradictions then they might be good explanations, to those who haven't made up their mind in advance they may not seem so good.

Yes, there are some biblical contradictions that can be reasoned away, but that doesn't mean every bible contradiction can be explained in a satisfactory manner.

Richard Godwin

May I suggest to you a rather complete analysis of these matters from a renowned biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,

Message 2 of 19
, Sep 12, 2009

0 Attachment

May I suggest to you a rather complete analysis of these matters from a
renowned biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, in "The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture," "Misquoting Jesus," and "Jesus Interrupted."

There are many contradictions, could be called discrepancies, in the NT, as
well as numerous interpolations for theological purposes. Discrepancies in
Paul for instance:

After his conversion, where did Paul go?
Paul: "I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to
Jerusalem...but I went away off to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to
Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem...In what I am
writing to you, before God, I am not lying." (Gal. 1:16-20)
Luke: Immediately he went to Damascus, spending some time there, then
straight to Jerusalem. (Acts. 9:19-30).
Paul insists his gospel came only from God, and he did not from the
apostles. For Luke, he was in complete continuity with all the apostles:
they met, they talked, they agreed (var. in Acts). For Paul, they had
significant disagreements.
In Paul's beginning travels, he says he "was still unknown by sight to the
churches of Judea." (Gal. 1:21-22). For Luke, earlier Paul persecuted
Christians in Judea, Christian churches in "Judea and Samaria" (Acts 8:1-3;
9:1-2). They didn't know what he looked like?
Paul went to Athens, Timothy went with him, and then Timothy returned to
Thessalonica (Thess. 3:1-2). In Acts, Christians "sent Paul away to the
coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind" (17:14-15), so he traveled
alone, and met up with him later (17:16--8:5).
Paul went to Jerusalem, for the second time he had been there (Gal. 1:18;
2:1), but in Acts, it was his third time (9, 11, 15).
In Acts, Paul in Thessalonica converted both Jews and non-Jews (17:14). For
Paul it was only to non-Jews: they "turned to God from idols" (1 Thess.
1:9), only pagans also in 1 Cor. 12:2. He called himself apostle to the
Gentiles (not Jews). Much information given in Acts but not by Paul is
suspect to being correct.
In theology, there are basic differences between Paul and the gospels, thus
from the teachings of Jesus as portrayed. For Paul soteriology depended only
on believe in the risen Christ, Torah law, or any law, having no benefit
whatsoever. In the gospels, Torah law also is required.

If you are interested, I can give you many discrepancies in the gospels,
such as in the crucifixion and death stories, and many more.

Nice summary Wolfray. Mr. Musser, you stated, "You are not even aware of the
numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible."

Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
"contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and easily
explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence? Reminds me of an
atheist I debated in 2006, in which he claimed the genealogies of Christ
were in contradiction. After I explained the difference (which wasn't that
hard to figure out), he simply responded without responding to the matter
anymore.

It has been my experience to see that atheism has developed it's own
mythology, influencing it's adherents to assume the Bible teaches this or
that without testing their assumption.

Looking forward to your reply Mr. Musser.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Jack, I'm not going to waste much time in reply, as you did as most
> athiest's do, that is try to impress me with your enlightment and how much
> you think you know about God and the Bible and how little I know. The word
> athiest comes from two greek words "A" (meaning - "no") and "theos"
> (meaning - "God"). So be enlightened by me. There is no way that you can
> make any credible claims as to what, why, how or who God is. Except for
> the times of God's judgement against evil men, all of the terrible
> horrendous crimes committed are done by evil,greedy, power hungry humans
> who also think they are enlightened and no best.
>
> The end, Ray
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Wolfray, If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible then
> > you have probably only dipped into the book and have not studied it. If
> > you believe that Jesus brought something new to man, then you have to
> > expect contradictions. The story of his telling the crowd that he
> > without sin should throw the first stone is a sensational contradiction
> > to anything that went before it. In fact it is so much of a
> > contradiction that few fundamentalist can integrate it into their
> > religion. They much prefer the old testament god to the one that Jesus
> > presents to us. The old testament god is modeled on some of the worst
> > characteristics of natural man, because natural man could comprehend no
> > better. So we get a vindiction, angry, jealous, and remorseful god,
> > attributes that do not reflect the best in man's own nature, but his
> > worse. They reflect the characteristics of the typical patriarch of
> > their time, fathers who were powerful and had to be
> > appeased. This god was talking to a nomadic people who did not have
> > jails and so the punishments were often extreme, such as killing anyone
> > who was a nuisance, like disobedient children, or those who commited sex
> > acts that did not contribute to the survival of the tribe. Forgiveness
> > meant constantly confronting the same problem over and over again so it
> > was much easier to eliminate the problem once and for all. A
> > Machavellian god was essential. How else can you condone the savagery of
> > their need to eliminate men, women and children of the cities that they
> > conquerored? It is hard to maintain a specific doctrine or creed if
> > there is competition, so it is best to eliminate it. Communism and
> > Nazism found the same truth important for their success. Heresy has to
> > be one of the most feared crimes in any society that wants to preserve
> > itself in one image and one image alone. There is nothing in the New
> > Testament that condones the acts of the
> > inquisition, but the old testament is quite conducive to such a
> > concept.
> >
> > the concept of hell is so much more important to Jesus because it places
> > the responsibility on god to judge others and not on man. The apparent
> > justice of heaven and hell deprive man of the right to act in god's
> > stead. This does not undermine the state's right to punish offenders but
> > it does undermine the right of sinners to judge and punish those they
> > consider sinners because as Jesus tell us, we are all sinners, no one
> > morally superior to any other. Jesus is quite consistent when he sends
> > render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . . There is a role for the
> > state to punish anyone who harms others, but not to punish what some
> > consider to be sinners whether their acts harm anyone else.
> >
> > Christians are out and out human beings with all of our frailities and
> > consequently constantly attribute to Christ what they find in Moses,
> > Joshua, and many others. There is a compelling need to feel superior to
> > others and to strong arm others into our own image of what is moral.
> > Mercy is greatly misunderstood by those who prefer the god of the old
> > testament to the god of the new. Jesus was preaching a message that is
> > profoundly difficult for man to accept and so he does not.
> >
> > Look at yourself. See how confident you are that you know the truth even
> > though your knowledge of the Bible is quite superficial. You are not
> > even aware of the numerous books listing the contradictions in the
> > Bible. You have protected yourself from anything that contradicts what
> > you want to believe. And anyone should well want to do who has been
> > trained by a book that makes heresy the greatest sin of all. Thinking,
> > and thinking the wrong thing is the most dangerous thing any believer
> > can do and so is discouraged as often and as forceable as it can be.
> > This explains why you know so little about atheists and about their
> > reasonable objections to the Bible. You have been trained to believe
> > only one thing and to believe that without question, no matter how
> > absurd it can be at times.
> >
> > You are now venturing into very dangerous waters because you are too
> > confident. If you continue, you will learns things that make everything
> > you know dubious and troublesome. So like the gates of hell, the gates
> > to understanding others should read, Abandon all hope, ye who enter
> > here. Education is so much different than indoctrination. Non-believers
> > are willing to use reason and logic, which believers have to exhault
> > faith, and faith as many faithful have praised to be better the more
> > ridiculous are the things you believe. It is easy to believe the
> > reasonable so one can hardly call it faith. But believing anything that
> > defies reason is the measure of a great faith.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Nice summary Wolfray. Mr. Musser, you stated, "You are not even aware of the
numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible."

Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
"contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and easily
explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence? Reminds me of an
atheist I debated in 2006, in which he claimed the genealogies of Christ
were in contradiction. After I explained the difference (which wasn't that
hard to figure out), he simply responded without responding to the matter
anymore.

It has been my experience to see that atheism has developed it's own
mythology, influencing it's adherents to assume the Bible teaches this or
that without testing their assumption.

Looking forward to your reply Mr. Musser.

HumanCarol

...

Message 4 of 19
, Sep 13, 2009

0 Attachment

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...> wrote:
<<Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
"contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and easily
explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence? Reminds me of an atheist I debated in 2006, in which he claimed the genealogies of Christ were in contradiction. After I explained the difference (which wasn't that hard to figure out), ... >>

The genealogies of Christ in the bible are not only contradictory, they are meaningless, since Joseph is allegedly biologically unrelated to the mythical Christ.

<<It has been my experience to see that atheism has
developed it's [sic] own mythology, influencing it's [sic] adherents to assume the Bible teaches this or that without testing their assumption.>>

Atheism has no mythology. It has no dogma. There are no atheist tenets.

PS: "it's" is a contraction.

spacehut1

... Of course there is no dogma or tenet, as you just listed. So, an atheist could believe there is a dogma or tenet, if they wanted. Or, even believe the

>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" <spacehut1@> wrote:
> <<Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
> "contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and easily
> explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence? Reminds me of an atheist I debated in 2006, in which he claimed the genealogies of Christ were in contradiction. After I explained the difference (which wasn't that hard to figure out), ... >>
>
> The genealogies of Christ in the bible are not only contradictory, they are meaningless, since Joseph is allegedly biologically unrelated to the mythical Christ.
>
> <<It has been my experience to see that atheism has
> developed it's [sic] own mythology, influencing it's [sic] adherents to assume the Bible teaches this or that without testing their assumption.>>
>
> Atheism has no mythology. It has no dogma. There are no atheist tenets.
>
> PS: "it's" is a contraction.
>

Of course there is no dogma or tenet, as you just listed. So, an atheist could believe there is a dogma or tenet, if they wanted. Or, even believe the Bible.

>
> Of course there is no dogma or tenet, as you just listed. So, an
> atheist could believe there is a dogma or tenet, if they wanted. Or,
> even believe the Bible.

An atheist could believe a dogma, it just isn't required by the definition of atheism (nor is it common amongst those who have thought about what they believe).

Of course believing the Bible to be non-fiction would make one not an atheist.

> Note to group: please grant time for my replies to previous posts.
> The to-do-list of life calls. Thanks!

That's OK.

HumanCarol

... spacehut1 wrote:

Message 7 of 19
, Sep 16, 2009

0 Attachment

> > PS: "it's" is a contraction.

"spacehut1" <spacehut1@...> wrote:

<<Please explain "it's contradiction.>>

What contradiction?

I stated that

"it's"

is a CONTRACTION.

It is not a possessive pronoun!!

spacehut1

An atheist could believe a dogma, it just isn t required by the definition of atheism .. - What does atheism require? An atheist could believe atheism is

Message 8 of 19
, Oct 6, 2009

0 Attachment

"An atheist could believe a dogma, it just isn't required by the definition of atheism .." - What does atheism require? An atheist could believe atheism is dogmatic, regardless of your definition of atheism. Who are you to tell an atheist what atheists can or cannot believe? And, how can you require atheists to fit into your definition of atheism? Starting to sound a little dogmatic. (here, I'm still getting used to references of atheism and belief in an affirmative connection)

"Of course believing the Bible to be non-fiction would make one not an atheist." - Says who? Remember, there is no dogma or tenet, atheism does not restrict belief (even though stating there is no dogma or tenet contradicts itself, by establishing such).

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course there is no dogma or tenet, as you just listed. So, an
> > atheist could believe there is a dogma or tenet, if they wanted. Or,
> > even believe the Bible.
>
> An atheist could believe a dogma, it just isn't required by the definition of atheism (nor is it common amongst those who have thought about what they believe).
>
> Of course believing the Bible to be non-fiction would make one not an atheist.
>
> > Note to group: please grant time for my replies to previous posts.
> > The to-do-list of life calls. Thanks!
>
> That's OK.
>

spacehut1

If we re going to start pointing out grammar errors, we re all barbecue.

Message 9 of 19
, Oct 6, 2009

0 Attachment

If we're going to start pointing out grammar errors, we're all barbecue.

> An atheist could believe atheism is dogmatic, regardless of your
> definition of atheism. Who are you to tell an atheist what atheists
> can or cannot believe?

I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I may very well say that some things some atheists believe are wrong).

> And, how can you require atheists to fit into your definition of
> atheism?

The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it means.

> "Of course believing the Bible to be non-fiction would make one not
> an atheist." - Says who?

To believe the bible to be non-fiction you'd need to believe in a god which is the one thing that would make someone not an atheist.

spacehut1

What does atheism require? … That one not believe in a god. - Dogma or tenet, etc.!! This also contradicts your statement, I don t tell atheists what

Message 11 of 19
, Oct 15, 2009

0 Attachment

"What does atheism require? That one not believe in a god." - Dogma or tenet, etc.!! This also contradicts your statement, "I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe .."

"I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I may very well say that some things some atheists believe are wrong)." - An atheist believes wrong? How? They must have been out of line with the tenet. Who are you to tell them their belief is wrong? They can believe whatever.

"The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it means." - You did not answer the question, but I suppose an atheist could believe your definition, but who says they have to? You?

"To believe the bible to be non-fiction you'd need to believe in a god which is the one thing that would make someone not an atheist." - So, an atheist is not allowed to believe the Bible. Sounding dogmatic. But, an atheist should be allowed to believe the Bible, because you don't tell them what can or cannot be believed.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" wrote:
> >
> > - What does atheism require?
>
> That one not believe in a god.
>
> > An atheist could believe atheism is dogmatic, regardless of your
> > definition of atheism. Who are you to tell an atheist what atheists
> > can or cannot believe?
>
> I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I may very well say that some things some atheists believe are wrong).
>
> > And, how can you require atheists to fit into your definition of
> > atheism?
>
> The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it means.
>
> > "Of course believing the Bible to be non-fiction would make one not
> > an atheist." - Says who?
>
> To believe the bible to be non-fiction you'd need to believe in a god which is the one thing that would make someone not an atheist.
>

Judy

There are no requirements to be an atheist. Each person has their own personal beliefs concerning the authenticity of a creator. Being an atheist is not a club

Message 12 of 19
, Oct 16, 2009

0 Attachment

There are no requirements to be an atheist. Each person has their own personal beliefs concerning the authenticity of a creator. Being an atheist is not a club or organization with requirements. No one can call another an atheist; it is a self-proclamation. I have never tried to convince another that there is no god unless invited to do so, either in person or on the internet. The title of this group intrigued me so I joined and will give my opinions here. Just as anyone else has joined, it is an invitation to a discussion. Just as there is no proof of a god, there is no proof there was a jesus or that the bible is inspired by a god.

Atheists are not hostile to people who have the fantasy of an invisible god, unless invited into a discussion about religion, when we become exasperated by the denial of facts from those infected with the virus of believing in an invisible, evil, selfish, uncaring, distant being that created disease, pain and suffering and a satan.

"What does atheism require? … That one not believe in a god." - Dogma or tenet, etc.!! This also contradicts your statement, "I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe .."

"I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I may very well say that some things some atheists believe are wrong)." - An atheist believes wrong? How? They must have been out of line with the tenet. Who are you to tell them their belief is wrong? They can believe whatever.

"The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it means." - You did not answer the question, but I suppose an atheist could believe your definition, but who says they have to? You?

"To believe the bible to be non-fiction you'd need to believe in a god which is the one thing that would make someone not an atheist." - So, an atheist is not allowed to believe the Bible. Sounding dogmatic. But, an atheist should be allowed to believe the Bible, because you don't tell them what can or cannot be believed.

--- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@.. .> wrote:
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "spacehut1" wrote:
> >
> > - What does atheism require?
>
> That one not believe in a god.
>
> > An atheist could believe atheism is dogmatic, regardless of your
> > definition of atheism. Who are you to tell an atheist what atheists
> > can or cannot believe?
>
> I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I may very well say that some things some atheists believe are wrong).
>
> > And, how can you require atheists to fit into your definition of
> > atheism?
>
> The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it means.
>
> > "Of course believing the Bible to be non-fiction would make one not
> > an atheist." - Says who?
>
> To believe the bible to be non-fiction you'd need to believe in a god which is the one thing that would make someone not an atheist.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

bestonnet_00

... The bloody definition of the word. ... A reasonable person would realise that what I said was equivalent to I don t tell those who do not believe in a god

>
> "What does atheism require? That one not believe in a god." -
> Dogma or tenet, etc.!!

The bloody definition of the word.

> This also contradicts your statement, "I don't tell atheists what
> they can or can not believe .."

A reasonable person would realise that what I said was equivalent to "I don't tell those who do not believe in a god what they can or can not believe" which does not at all contradict anything else I said recently.

If someone believes something that is inconsistent with being an atheist then they rather obviously aren't an atheist.

> "I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I
> may very well say that some things some atheists believe are
> wrong)." - An atheist believes wrong? How?

Atheism is merely not having a belief in a god and says *nothing* about any other beliefs that an atheist may hold.

> They must have been out of line with the tenet. Who are you to tell
> them their belief is wrong? They can believe whatever.

They can believe whatever they like but if I think something they believe is wrong I'm quite willing to tell them that (and to explain why it's wrong).

> "The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it
> means." - You did not answer the question, but I suppose an
> atheist could believe your definition, but who says they have to?
> You?

Well it the preferred definition by those who self-describe as atheists (it's also about as inclusive as you can get without making the term useless).

Judy

When the religious cannot defend themselves they revert to attacking the person that is debating them. This is just an attempt to either change the subject of

Message 14 of 19
, Oct 16, 2009

0 Attachment

When the religious cannot defend themselves they revert to attacking the person that is debating them. This is just an attempt to either change the subject of the discussion or to make the other person so mad that they will abandon their position.

> This also contradicts your statement, "I don't tell atheists what
> they can or can not believe .."

A reasonable person would realise that what I said was equivalent to "I don't tell those who do not believe in a god what they can or can not believe" which does not at all contradict anything else I said recently.

If someone believes something that is inconsistent with being an atheist then they rather obviously aren't an atheist.

> "I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I
> may very well say that some things some atheists believe are
> wrong)." - An atheist believes wrong? How?

Atheism is merely not having a belief in a god and says *nothing* about any other beliefs that an atheist may hold.

> They must have been out of line with the tenet. Who are you to tell
> them their belief is wrong? They can believe whatever.

They can believe whatever they like but if I think something they believe is wrong I'm quite willing to tell them that (and to explain why it's wrong).

> "The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it
> means." - You did not answer the question, but I suppose an
> atheist could believe your definition, but who says they have to?
> You?

Well it the preferred definition by those who self-describe as atheists (it's also about as inclusive as you can get without making the term useless).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard Godwin

Judy, I think the main problem with these Christians is that they have been indoctrinated into their beliefs, and that includes to beware of and don t pay

Message 15 of 19
, Oct 16, 2009

0 Attachment

Judy, I think the main problem with these Christians is that they have been
indoctrinated into their beliefs, and that includes to beware of and don't
pay attention to any other information which contradicts that, so that what
they know is all the truth and nothing but the truth, everything else comes
from Satan. It's really hard to get through one's mind like that.

With all this news about that religious group who live in sweat tents for up
to 36 hours with extreme heat and no food or water, apparently to sweat out
their demons, and many have become sick, and now some have died, makes me
think two things: 1. Those dumb people who paid $10,000 for that because
of their indoctrinated beliefs are good examples of the Christian brain. 2.
Religion primarily is about power, control, money, and money. The fraud
perpetrator tried to escape, but he'll be caught, and hopefully convicted of
manslaughter and sent to prison. How many other of those preachers that
suck the live and money out of ignorant people should receive the same fate
in a court of law?

When the religious cannot defend themselves they revert to attacking the
person that is debating them. This is just an attempt to either change the
subject of the discussion or to make the other person so mad that they will
abandon their position.

> This also contradicts your statement, "I don't tell atheists what
> they can or can not believe .."

A reasonable person would realise that what I said was equivalent to "I
don't tell those who do not believe in a god what they can or can not
believe" which does not at all contradict anything else I said recently.

If someone believes something that is inconsistent with being an atheist
then they rather obviously aren't an atheist.

> "I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I
> may very well say that some things some atheists believe are
> wrong)." - An atheist believes wrong? How?

Atheism is merely not having a belief in a god and says *nothing* about any
other beliefs that an atheist may hold.

> They must have been out of line with the tenet. Who are you to tell
> them their belief is wrong? They can believe whatever.

They can believe whatever they like but if I think something they believe is
wrong I'm quite willing to tell them that (and to explain why it's wrong).

> "The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it
> means." - You did not answer the question, but I suppose an
> atheist could believe your definition, but who says they have to?
> You?

Well it the preferred definition by those who self-describe as atheists
(it's also about as inclusive as you can get without making the term
useless).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Judy

You are correct Richard. Someone said to the effect, give me a child and I will give him god then he will be ours for life. Their god infection is so strong

Message 16 of 19
, Oct 17, 2009

0 Attachment

You are correct Richard. Someone said to the effect, give me a child and I will give him god then he will be ours for life. Their god infection is so strong that they want everyone else to be sucked in with them and spend their lives waiting for the 'end of days' so they can be with their god forever. It is a shame because this attitude does not make them better people as the prison population reflects- 45% religious and 0.7 atheists. Some do give to their communities but their motives are not for the general welfare of others but for a seat closer to their god in heaven. And their indoctrination is so strong that they must "infect" all the others of the world with their own disease.

Judy, I think the main problem with these Christians is that they have been
indoctrinated into their beliefs, and that includes to beware of and don't
pay attention to any other information which contradicts that, so that what
they know is all the truth and nothing but the truth, everything else comes
from Satan. It's really hard to get through one's mind like that.

With all this news about that religious group who live in sweat tents for up
to 36 hours with extreme heat and no food or water, apparently to sweat out
their demons, and many have become sick, and now some have died, makes me
think two things: 1. Those dumb people who paid $10,000 for that because
of their indoctrinated beliefs are good examples of the Christian brain. 2.
Religion primarily is about power, control, money, and money. The fraud
perpetrator tried to escape, but he'll be caught, and hopefully convicted of
manslaughter and sent to prison. How many other of those preachers that
suck the live and money out of ignorant people should receive the same fate
in a court of law?

When the religious cannot defend themselves they revert to attacking the
person that is debating them. This is just an attempt to either change the
subject of the discussion or to make the other person so mad that they will
abandon their position.

> This also contradicts your statement, "I don't tell atheists what
> they can or can not believe .."

A reasonable person would realise that what I said was equivalent to "I
don't tell those who do not believe in a god what they can or can not
believe" which does not at all contradict anything else I said recently.

If someone believes something that is inconsistent with being an atheist
then they rather obviously aren't an atheist.

> "I don't tell atheists what they can or can not believe (though I
> may very well say that some things some atheists believe are
> wrong)." - An atheist believes wrong? How?

Atheism is merely not having a belief in a god and says *nothing* about any
other beliefs that an atheist may hold.

> They must have been out of line with the tenet. Who are you to tell
> them their belief is wrong? They can believe whatever.

They can believe whatever they like but if I think something they believe is
wrong I'm quite willing to tell them that (and to explain why it's wrong).

> "The definition of the word is without belief in god, that's all it
> means." - You did not answer the question, but I suppose an
> atheist could believe your definition, but who says they have to?
> You?

Well it the preferred definition by those who self-describe as atheists
(it's also about as inclusive as you can get without making the term
useless).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.